ANST - The BoD Incident?

[James Crouchet]

If you missed what we said earlier, I quoted below.

My reply: Ok, so BoD members supposedly weren't "members" either. 
That was still an obviously bogus argument that not even THEY could 
have believed and it was still dishonest rather than merely stupid.

You are quite correct that the BoD will probably lead itself into 
trouble again. Oldtimers (I only have 14 years in the SCA) inform me 
that the BoD goes nuts and self destructs on a cyclic basis every 5 
to 7 years. I wonder when we are due...and what the next one will be 
about.

Dore

On 26 Feb 98, Timothy A. McDaniel wrote:

> > The basis seemed to be the contention that only BoD
> > members are "members" of the SCA.
> 
> That is not my understanding of the contention.  To
> elaborate on it:
> 
> California law has two types of not-for-profit corps: member
> and non-member.  If you're a member corp, the members have
> certain rights guaranteed them in law, such as voting for a
> board of directors, access to the corporate documents and
> financials, et cetera.  Non-member corps don't have that.
> The SCA By-Laws says that the SCA is a non-member corp under
> California law, and that all uses of the term "member"
> hereafter occurring refers to one of the following classes
> of supporter, which doesn't make them statutory members.
> (I'm paraphrasing, not having Web access to-day.)
> 
> The By-Laws also say that members have reasonable access to
> the financials.  The SCA Inc.'s lawyer's contention was
> that, since by law the SCA has no members, the plaintiffs
> had no right to the financials.  This is obviously lame,
> because
> 
> - you have to ignore the "when we say 'members', we mean ..."
>   clause entirely
> 
> - the financials clause would have absolutely no purpose
>   whatsoever
> 
> - there are other clauses that use "member", like the one
>   that says that all corporate officers down to the local
>   branches have to be members -- so there have been no
>   officers for years.  (No Crowns, either, but you don't
>   mention that in a non-SCA court.)
> 
> - the corporation had been using "member" in the larger
>   sense for years.
> 
> The other SCA Inc. nastiness here was promising access to
> the books if someone went to the corporate office, and when they
> showed up denying them access to the books.
> 
> The judge, as I wrote, ruled for the plaintiffs and awarded
> them costs -- highly unusual, and the plaintiffs had not
> been suing for money.
> 
> Daniel de Lincolia
============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.